Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
SANJEEV KUMAR RASTOGI vs PNB HOUSING FINANCE LTD on 9 December 2021
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AT LUCKNOW
Present: A.H. Khan, Presiding Officer
Misc. Application No. 13 of 2020
Dated: 09.12.2021
Sanjeev Kumar Rastogi & another
----- Applicant
Versus
PNB Housing Finance Ltd.
----- Respondents
For applicant: Shri Vikas Pandey, Advocate.
For the respondent-Bank: Shri R. Goel, Advocate
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
**ORDER**
1. 1. The applicants have filed this M.A. under section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recalling the order of dismissal dt. 08.7.2019 passed in S.A. No. 483 of 2017.
2. 2. The applicants have moved this application on the ground that the applicants have filed S.A. to challenge the measures initiated by the respondent bank. The S.A. was listed on 8.7.2019 for hearing, but the counsel for the applicant neither appeared nor informed to the applicants. On 23.2.2020 the applicant met with the counsel to know the progress of the case, but no satisfactory reply was given then he contacted the present advocate who inquired the matter and informed that the S.A. was dismissed on 8.7.2019. Thereafter applicants have arranged the funds for filing recall application and after receiving the certified copy on 29.2.2020 moved this recall application on 05.3.2020. The applicant also filed one delay condonation application for condoning the delay in filing the M.A.
3. 3. No reply to the M.A. was filed by the respondent FI. At the time of the arguments the counsel for the respondent FI vehemently argued and stated that the misc. application is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed.
1. 4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and summon the original file of the main case. Perused the original file of the case and on perusal of the record reflects that the applicants were not appearing in the case since 02.8.2018 i.e. about last one year. In recall application applicants pleaded ailment of his wife and annexed some medical prescription. From the documents annexed in respect of medical treatment it is not found that when the S.A. was dismissed for want of prosecution the wife of the applicant was hospitalized.
2. 5. It is not the case of the applicants in the M.A. that due to the ailment they could not contact their advocate. It is further submitted that when applicant/deponent contacted his earlier counsel on 23.2.2020 and he came to know about the dismissal order only on 25.2.2020 and after receiving the certified copy applicant has filed this recall application. On the other hand the counsel for the respondent FI argued that applicants deliberately and negligently did not appear before this Tribunal on material date as such they are not entitled to any relief. Although applicants have pleaded about the ailment of their family member and annexed some medical prescription but they failed to show any prima-facie evidence which compelled them from pursuing their case before this Tribunal diligently. Further, it is strange that applicants remained inactive and evasive for so many times and suddenly applicant/deponent contacted his counsel after expiry of 05 months time to know about the status of the case. Further, as per their own pleadings applicants could not contact advocate for a longer time and the engaged counsel stopped appearing in the case. Thus, in the given circumstances, the said advocate cannot be blamed in any manner.
3. 6. In this case we have to see the act and conduct of applicants during the course of trial. It is a categorical admission on the part of the applicants that they could not contact their advocate. The applicants in this case have failed to convinced this Tribunal about their act and conduct how and in what manner they were abstained by the circumstances to approach their own advocate. The applicants were negligent in implementing their own rights and remedies. Thus ultimately facilitated dismissal of the S.A. for non-prosecution. The applicants have failed to submit any plausible and convincing reason on their non-appearance before this court are not entitled to discretionary relief from this Tribunal. The application as filed by the applicants is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the misc. application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
The pending I.As. also dismissed accordingly.
Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties as per Rule.
(A.H. Khan)
Presiding Officer